English Riots: Society Broken By Capitalistic Greed

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by JoanMiró, Aug 18, 2011.

  1. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The UK is paying for things by borrowing money on massive scale and Wales already gets more per person than England does. I don't see how you're being robbed. And it's curious that a Welsh nationalist should think Wales deserves more from the UK budget.

    And as for the "independent commission" .... I thought we'd been through that? A commission isn't independent if it's set up by politicians, and naturally that applies equally to those set up through Westminster or the Welsh Assembly or any other political entity.
     
  2. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We're not talking about illegal immigration though that's a problem on it's own.

    • The EU allows for any EU citizen to live anywhere in the EU. (Also applies to non-EU states with access to the single market.) This is fine if all states are equal, but when so many people leave the poorer member states for the comparatively richer states, it becomes a huge problem. Like I said, we in the UK don't have the space or the infrastructure to cope.
    • Any person who is given citizenship of any EU member state then has the right to live in any EU member state. Think former colonies of European countries.
    • Any immigrant who feels his human rights have been usurped, including his right to remain, can apply to the European Court of Human Rights (though cases are actually heard in the UK with reference to the European Court in Strasbourg). Also applies to immigrants who commit criminal acts.
    Does anythihg similar apply to the US?
    That's true, but EU and human rights laws are superior to national law.

    I don't have a problem with international companies, but with politicians who have sold us out to them. I don't have a problem with highly educated immigrants (though it seems irresponsible to encourage such people from less well off countries) but I do with unskilled immigrants when we have enough unskilled of our own. Having said that, I still want the country's immigration policies decided by our democratically elected parliament, not the European Commission or corporations, and I want education and the benefits system improved so that we have a highly educated workforce of our own. I want politicians to remember that the people are not their servants and to stop selling them out. It's a pretty forlorn hope but I'm not about to give up.

    Oh right. An American who thinks he knows what's good for us. I presume you're not renouncing your US citizenship? Global labour market my foot!
     
  3. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome to a United Europe. US has the same issues as the US is made up of 50 states (nations) where people travel daily back and forth between them, trade and such. It's been happening since 1789.

    So cry a river to some other people, not an American as we've seen and done it long before you.

    I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, moved to Ohio and worked in Ohio (among other places). I didn't have to become a citizen of Ohio, per say. Just pay the taxes. I didn't need an Ohio driver's licesnse until I was there for a year, but that didn't bother me as I could replace it back to a Pennsylvaina one as soon as I moved back.

    Americans are use to labor mobility. You'll get use to it as well. It'll take time to "equal" out but it will.




    Here's a just 1 story from today..

    Federal law is superior to State law.. our state law is like national law in comparision to the EU vs countries.



    Read up US constitutional law changes since 1789 and tell me if you see in comparison to what you are complaining about in the EU. You'll be surprised. As we've (Americans) have been there and done that.



    No, I just know what history shows from the US which is similar to the EU vision. A unifed Europe is no different then a unified 50 States we have in the US.

    I sure as hell won't renounce my citizenship nor will I renouce any other citizenship because you wish it so. I choose when I renouce and will probably never do it as I like the ability to say come back to the United States without being harassed and could stay longer then a few months. If I renounce I would need a VISA and I am not waiting for a VISA to visit friends in a country I was born in.
     
  4. DutchClogCyborg

    DutchClogCyborg New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,572
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A minority is no longer a minority when it is a double digit figure which causes a lot of problem.
     
  5. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not crying a river to anyone. I've told you some of the reasons why I disagree with the UK's EU membership and you're free to dismiss my concerns if you want to, but your reasoning just doesn't stand up for me.

    I have nothing against labour mobility provided it is controlled by a work permit system. It's mass immigration, in a small densely populated island, that I have problem with. Official statistics predict that our population will grow to 71 million by 2033. We won't get used to that.

    What? An American judge is to make a judgement and you don't have a problem with it? Great! How'd you feel about a panel of foreign judges making that judgement? Imagine you had no right of appeal. Would that still be ok? And apply that same principle to a whole load of other issues and you might just start to have of an understanding of what EU member states deal with.

    Federal law and State Law are both made by AMERICANS. And American citizens vote for the US federal government. The only EU body EU citizens vote for is the European Parliament which is the weakest of all the EU's institutions. The real power lies in the unelected European Commission, and the Council of the European Union in which no member states holds anything like a blocking majority and decides most issues on a majority vote system. A majority of the English don't feel European enough to accept government by the EU. Even if I did feel European enough, the EU still wouldn't be acceptable until I'm convinced it's being run in the interests of its citizens and I'm a long way from that as yet.

    Presumably, you have read up US constitutional law changes since 1789. Why not just tell me briefly what they say to support your view? It's your point - back it up! If you're prepared to put up with your own government allowing more than half the jobs created to go to foreign born nationals, that's up to you, but the British people are opposed to that. Again: We don't have the space or the infrastructure to cope, and they displace unemployed people already here that we then pick up the benefits tab for. The fact that it suits employers just isn't good enough. We need a work permit system, not unlimited mass immigration.

    And the US evolved quite slowly after 1789. I understand that it didn't have much influence until after the Civil War. European states have come to the point where nothing of any significance is left to them to act on without having to fit with EU policy in just 50/60 years. The pace of change has been too quick and forced on the English by our own deceitful politicians. You'd need to ask the Welsh, Scots and Irish and other European citizens how they feel if you're interested in what they think.
    A unified Europe is very different to the unified 50 states of the US. If you think they're the same, you have an awful lot to learn about the EU.
    I didn't say I wished you to do anything, and I'm not at all surprised that you won't be renouncing your US citizenship. You can go back to the US if your move doesn't suit you. We are stuck with it. I hope you enjoy your time in Europe nevertheless.
     
  6. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not a double digit figure as a proportion of the population. It is therefore a minority. A minority that does cause a lot of problems though!
     
  7. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and disagreeing with me is absolutely fine, but the facts are the facts in this matter. United States is actually 50 different countries tied together by the US Constitution which is actually a treaty, much like the Lisbon Treaty.



    Then you have something against Labor mobility in it's purist sense. Those who come from other EU countries to the UK have the right to do so. In fact the future EU work permit policy (for non EU citizens) will be actually better then the current UK one. As the EU work permit policy will require any worker who moves to an EU country will require to have a job before moving.





    It's not an American judge, as you can't view the United States as the UK. It's more like the EU. So it would be no different then Judges given power by the formation of the EU making a judgement that effects those who live in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. While these countries are members of the UK each nation is total different as are the other EU members.

    So in this case a Federal Judge which gets his legal power from the US Constitution is ruling against actions by a police department and a County in the State of Tennessee. It's a "Foreign body" making a ruling on actions that happen in another country and every other State that is part of the United States will be subject to this ruling in future Judicial matter.




    Sorta true, but not. State law is to a specific State and those citizens or visitors of those States are only subject to it. For example some States don't recognize a right on red laws (traffic). If you do it and that State says it's illegal, it's a crime and you are subject to the punishment. There are a million examples of this.. such as Drug laws, Drunk Driving laws and so on.

    Federally each State has an X amount of Reps and 2 Senators which are elected by the citizens of each State. Federal laws apply to all States much like those laws done by the EU.

    Key word is Parliament. The US is "Constitutional" Republic. Not a Wolves eat the Sheep Democracy.

    EU is a UK model. The majority party (or parties) create a Government. Yet here you are complaining about the very system the UK uses.


    First off.. my view is supported just reading the US Constitution. I can't explain it point by point to you until you read it. Everybody thinks the US today is what it's always been. Many forget the US went through periods of mass immigration from Europe, We didn't really have a common language (say like Queen's English) and barely have it now. Each State has it's own identity, different culture and so forth.

    Secondly.. US went through this phase as well, it was called the 19th century and early 20th century.

    Evolved quite slowly? It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution did any country evolve quickly, that goes for Europe and the rest of the world. Like I said read up on US history from 1789-1865. State's had comparable power then the Federal Government until 1865. Over night that power ended. So the story you are telling is not one we don't know about.

    You are talking to a person who's an Irish citizen as well, lives and works in Germany. I know what people think on this matter. I am personally anti-EU have been from the State, but my position here is that this is all of Europe's stupidity that allowed it to happen. Not just those in the UK, but all over and for generations. I'll put it this way..

    The father of the EU is none other then Winston Churchill. Speech by Churchill. And the first treaty was the Treaty of London.



    Or you have to learn alot about the United States.

    You do realize I am a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland?
     
  8. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a wealth of difference between the EU and the US. As you say, the facts are the facts. I know enough about the US Constitution to know its nothing like the Lisbon Treaty. The US version can be read and understood by anyone. The Lisbon Treaty is only for lawyers who have a lot of time to spare. Its earlier version (the EU Constitution) was easier to read but still nothing like the US one. Even British ministers rely on analyses of the Lisbon text rather than the document itself. I doubt any of them have actually read it for themselves.

    Just what do you mean by "you have something against Labour mobility in its purist sense"? If you mean what I said in my last post, thanks. If not, please explain.

    The judge (in your link) was born in Memphis, Tennessee. How much more American can he be? I'm not viewing the US as anything other than the US, but you anyone who views it as the EU misses important differences. Our "supreme court" in human rights issues is the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR], sitting in Strasbourg. It could sit in London and I'd feel the same way. What is your equivalent and where does it sit? Who are the foreign judges who impose their will over the US? Do they sit in Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia ... Here's a list of ECHR judges since 1959.


    I just don't view the EU in the same way that Americans view the US, no matter how you might want to dress the issue up. Every American I ever met (and I've lived in the US) loves their country. The English don't even like the EU and I don't see that changing.

    Which foreign born foreign born nationals apart from those who have taken US citizenship, make your laws? Each senator and congressman must be a US citizen, as must the US president. And when did the US last appoint a foreign born national to the US supreme court? We have the European Commission consisting of bureaucrats from all over Europe, making ours. None of them is accountable to the citizens of Europe because they're never elected in the first place.

    The USSR, N Korea and Zimbabwe all had or have parliaments, so your key word is meaningless. And I never implied the US was a wolves eat sheep democracy. But tell me how foreign born nationals direct your policies? That's the key for me, other EU member states are still, as much as I like their peoples and most of their cultures, foreign and their politicians and the bureucrats they send to the EU are still foreign as far as I am concerned because I don't see myself as European in a political sense and no one here ever consented to being so.

    And the EU is a UK model?
    Oh really? Where is the UK's unelected commission deciding what our policies should be? There isn't one. And where is this 'majority party' which creates the EU government? There isn't one. We can get rid of the UK government in a single day and have a complete change of policies as an independent country. We can't do that in the EU because there is simply no mechanism for that. To suggest the system the EU uses is the same as the one used in the UK is risible. European elections change very little. That's one reason why the turnout is so low.

    I know the US today is not as it's always been. When the US went through periods of mass immigration from Europe, the US was a hugely underpopulated country by modern standards. Not so in the UK. We-don't-have-the-space-or- the-infrastructure-to-cope-with-mass-immigration.

    We're talking about the federal government's evolution, not societies' general evolvement. You said yourself that until 1865 the states had comparable power over the federal government. Even now the states can still decide some important issues for themselves and you still have a democracy. EU member states have little democracy left after just over 50 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing years and because we can no longer change the policies by changing our governments. People in the UK are trusting and not a little naive where politics is concerned, but they're not stupid. Politicians are a breed apart entirely. And living in Germany of Irish citizenship, I'm surprised you aren't more aware of how the EU operates.

    The EU credits several as its founding fathers, with Jean Monnet being the main candidate. It's quite well known that Churchill was in favour of European integration to bring together the old enemies, France and Germany, but he didn't want Britain to be a part of it. He said,

    "We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us in the words that were used of old, 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Captain of the Host?', we should reply with the Shunamite woman 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people'".


    I probably could learn a lot more about the US, but I'm not a citizen or resident of the US as you are of the EU, and neither am I telling you or anyone else how America (or Germany or Ireland, for that matter) should be. You, astonishingly, seem to think you're opinion is somehow worth more than mine; that your opinion is definitive. It's not, any more than mine is, though the facts are the facts.

    Viv, mentioned you are a dual citizen of the US and Ireland. That makes you a citizen of the EU too. Congratulations! But you'll still have your US citizenship if you want to bail out.
     
  9. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Back in 1789 the US Constitution could be read and understood by anyone. Today, not so much, as the Constitution has become a bastardized version by Government lawyers and Politicians who change the meanings of words like "General Welfare".

    Yes, and I complete understand the Lisbon Treaty is very much just lawyer speak. Read the bastard and found it's mostly a piecing old treaties into one major one.

    But to put into terms we can understand.. the Health Care bill (known as Obamacare) was 2,000 pages long. Lisbon Treaty was at total of 270 pages.

    By what you said..

    And this where you fail greatly at grasping the fact that the United States is actually 50 different Nations which signed a Treaty creating the United States. Our version of the ECHR is the Supreme Court which sits in Washington, DC. Washington, DC is not a State but a Federal City. It's like the Holy See. It's not part of Maryland or Virginia. The Supreme Court rulings effect every 50 States that make up the United States.

    The United States has signed many of conventions to come from the ECHR. So the list applies to the US as well. Didn't see that one coming did you?




    Most Americans are ignorant of what happens in the country. If Americans knew 10% of what goes on in Washington, DC and what this country is really about they'd hated it.


    You do realize a Federal Judge in California can force law changes in the Ohio, correct? That's a foreign national, despite how many times you say it's not, State comes the term Nation-State. But since you want to play this game.. UN has plenty effect so does the ECHR and WTO. But hey.. whatever.

    Oh wow.. How about the Privy Council?

    And the EPP is the center of the grand coalition while being the largest party in Europe, the only country they have no elected members is the UK.

    Having a coalition is no different then what the UK has now.

    Accept the facts here.. the US when mass immigration was taking place, immigrants ended up in major cities and the size of the US was much smaller specially during the 1900's. It's why you have cities which have huge Irish, Italian, German and Polish communities on the East Coast. At that time the US had very little infrastructure and horrible living conditions. Five Points, Manhattan was worse the London's East End during the 1900s.

    Wrong, today, if the Federal Government declares it their right to oversee it, it becomes a Federal issue. Almost every new problem that arises ends up the Federal hands.

    Oh I am aware of how the EU operates and it's no different then the US. We change politicians on a 2 year basis in the US and it's the same crap every time. Difference in the US to EU is the US citizen knows he or she is being (*)(*)(*)(*)ed before it actually happens.

    Then Churchill should have never brought for the idea as it was his words that brought forth a movement that is the EU. But then again this is the same guy who thought the UK forcing it's will on the Commonwealth was ok. He was a hypocrite and the irony falls on many in the UK as it's the chickens coming home to roost.




    No, my opinion on this matter is for naught, just a discussion. UK can bugger off if it wants as long as it allows Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to bugger off from the UK if they want. But we know that will never happen because it's 300 years later for some and others have began the normalization process of accept the Queen as their mother.

    Yes, it does. I will not give up my Irish citizenship as most of my family lives there and I have a home there. I will not give up my US citizenship anytime soon as my wife's family is American and since we are married it'd be a little weird having to file for a Visa or get a Green Card then reapplying if we choose later in life to settle in the US. Right now.. we are in Europe most of the time and she is going through the same process for her Irish citizenship and it'll take 3 years, which will require 3 years of overseas living. So not going anywhere for a while.
     
  10. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my opinion, this is an excellent, and the best, explanation for the high rates of muslim crime. Culture and genetics are also important factors, but the effects of virtual poverty cannot be ignored.

    While Britain has become more socially liberalised, it has over the last two decades been gradually returning to the system of privitisation which impoverished the masses during the industrial revolution (not that britons were free from tyranny under feudalism of course). Unfortunately the politicians have attached a misleading name to this privitisation: "liberal" economic policy. It is really not liberal at all, quite the opposite.
     
  11. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Lisbon Treaty has a lot more besides what's in the old treaties, including stuff that was previously decided by national governments, now decided in EU institutions by majority voting.

    The Health Care bill was made by Americans for Americans and the entire policy can be changed by a new government, and you can keep saying that America is made up of 50 nations, but most Americans are happy and proud to be American and anyone who travels through America can see that for themselves, so they accept submitting to the Federal Government as part of that citizenship. You say that most Americans are ignorant [...] and would feel differently if they knew what went on, and maybe they would, but they don't and that's a fact. Your schoolchildren even swear allegiance to their flag every morning! If English kids were swearing allegiance to the EU flag in school, there'd be uproar. Like I said, we just don't feel the same way about the EU that Americans feel about the US. The English distrust or even hate the EU, many of them purely on instinct, but many of them know exactly why they feel that way, as I do. Perhaps you cannot grasp this?

    How many Supreme Court judges are non-Americans? Has the Supreme Court ever had a non-American judge? Simple question ... simple answer ....?

    What I said would suggest that I am in favour of labour mobility in its purist sense and I fail to see how you could think otherwise. Labour mobility should be in the hands of the democratically elected government so that it suits the nation, the employer and the immigrant, not just the employer and the immigrant, otherwise it becomes mass immigration, and that's what I don't support. Maybe you can't grasp the difference?

    The US has co-operated with the European Institutions on several things. It will withdraw that co-operation as and when it suits the US, ie the US is not bound by anything the ECHR decides unless it chooses to be. Has for instance, the ECHR ruled that you must allow convicted rapists and murders the right to vote as it has recently here? The UK is bound to the ECHR and all of its decisions by its membership of the EU. Our parliamentarians are, they say, pretty upset about this, but they are powerless to do anything.

    And yes I know that federal judges can force change in any states, but they're still Americans. The UN has no power to force America to do its bidding any more than the ECHR does. The UN is hardly going to get tough with the US when the US is the largest funder of its programme. The WTO however is one organisation I do think is necessary but nations do disregard what it says when it suits them.

    And the Privy Council? It doesn't decide policies. It advises the queen, but she only has a largely symbolic role and certainly doesn't decide policies, not even close! She has never refused to give her assent to any act of parliament. Not one. The House of Lords is another institution that people frequently like to bring up. The House of Commons can and does overrule the HofL if it feels it wants to.

    I know about the EPP and many of its personalities. It's the most pro-integrationist party of all and the Conservatives spent years in it and voting with it, whilst the domestic branch of the party made eurosceptic noises at home. Even if Europeans stopped voting for its MEPs the policies wouldn't change. The European Parliament is little more than a talking shop.

    If the EU's coalition is not different to what the UK has now, how can European citizens vote out the government of the EU to get a change in policies? Do tell. (And oh wow, this could really cause a stir!)

    There were about 45 states in the US by 1900 so it was already hugely bigger than the UK, and times were rather different then. Those immigrants had no 'human rights' and the US controlled its own immigration policy. Do you think we should replicate Manhattan's and Victorian England's problems in modern day England? (This is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world.) Only we won't of course, we'll just increase taxes and the concrete over our countryside in a vain attempt to offset the problem. Try accepting facts yourself.

    The EU's political structures are very different to the US. It's just unfortunate that you have 'crap' policies. (Would you have had Obamacare from the Republicans?) Even with good politicians, we'd still be following the same EU policies unless we withdrew from the EU. That is an indisputable fact because what we are bound by what the EU decides and disputes are decided in the European Courts of Justice. No appeals against its decisions are possible, just like the ECHR's. I don't like being (*)(*)(*)(*)ed at all, but at least civilesed independent countries can get rid of (*)(*)(*)(*)ers.

    You can think whatever you please about Churchill. I have no reason to defend him. Europhiles (I'm not saying you're one) love to claim that he would have supported Britain's membership of the EU, but this is not supported by what he said. You might not have followed other threads, but I have made it quite clear that as far as I'm concerned what happens in Scotland should be a matter for the people living there and no one else unless they choose to make it so. Same goes for other parts of the UK and the rest of the EU member states. Same goes for the rest of the EU member states. I no more want to interfere with what happens in someone else's country any more than I want anyone else to interfere in whatever's left of the UK after any referendums have taken place.

    You didn't need to explain your citizenship issues to me. but the fact remains if you keep them you can bailout of the EU (or the US, for that matter) if you want to.
     
  12. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thatcherism is now official EU policy, only the EU calls it liberalisation instead of privatisation. It amounts to the same thing. As much as I feel pity for "James", I will not support any policy which does not address the real issues, educating children in so called deprived areas being one. Anything else is just a kicking the can down the road approach.
     
  13. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's no different then the US Constitution. Instead of multiple treaties, we have the amendment process which changes the Constitution. We have 27 amendments. The first 10 (known as the bill of rights) weren't even part of the US Constitution when passed. We still have 4 pending in State legislatures.

    The Health Care law was designed by NGOs who gave it Congressional leadership. The Health Care law wasn't widely supported. But no point in rehashing a failure.

    America is 50 nations. They rally around the flag as they were raised that way, but if think Americans are united in any sense when you ask someone about Washington, DC and how they effect their life.. you'll find they aren't too happy about it. American citizenship isn't based on submitting to the Federal Government. If that was the case 40% of the country would lose it's citizenship overnight. Citizenship like most countries is based on Birthright.

    It's cause of the ignorance they are faithful. It's a hear no evil, see no evil mentality. It's like that in every country, even the UK countries.

    Now this is ironic. The person's (Francis Bellamy) who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in the US held the view that every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth. But you barely know anything the pledge. No schoolkid is forced to swear allegiance, in fact 25 States do not even require it in schools. If a teacher forces, teacher get fired and the school district has to pay damages to the student.

    But you think there would be an uproar? It took over 50 years for the pledge of allegiances to be even common place in the US. It crept into the system. You can avoid uproars by doing things a little at a time. Like European leaders did with the EU.

    No, I grasp your opinion on it, but I reject it because it's an opinion of a country that spent the better half of 300 years forcing it's will all over the world. You know Rule, Britannia!.

    We've had 6 over it's life time.

    James Wilson, Scotland
    James Iredell, England
    William Paterson, Ireland
    David Brewer, Turkey
    George Sutherland, England
    Felix Frankfurter, Austria

    Jennifer Granholm was under consideration to fill a seat recently. She was born in Canada.

    Politically speaking, today it's virtually impossible, but legally a non-citizen can sit on the Supreme Court as they did before 1962.


    Labor Mobility is an economic term. You are absolutely not in favor of labor mobility in the purist sense. As the measure of labor mobility based on lack of impediments to mobility. A nation who enacts laws that prevents labor mobility is protectionist.

    Recently? Just wait.

    Uh, the US follows and conducts UN missions. It's why we went to Iraq 2 times, Lebanon, and Somalia.

    Have to two part it.
     
  14. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excuse me.. You can't bs me on this. As the Privy council contains judicial functions which are still used today. They still hear cases from Commonwealth nations (basically no different then that of the ECHR). In fact it was only recently did the UK create a Supreme Court that dealt with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Act.

    Your question was this:
    So this premise it's different is bs. Doesn't matter if she refuses or not, it's the fact she's unelected and so is the Council.

    And I don't disagree about what the EU is. But I gave you a party with a majority.

    It can't just like the UK citizenship can't vote out a Conservative, Liberal Democrat or a Labor and LD coalition. So your point is what? In the US, it's a mixture of Republicans or Democrats all the time and the difference of majority vs minority is a few dozen seats.

    US has mass immigration already again, specially those from Mexico and further south. But England isn't even close to being on the list of densely populated countries in the world.



    We'd have a different version, but UK and EU are like minded so I don't know how you complain when it comes to Social policy..

    If that's your position then education the English in the matter and have them make strides to relieve those other countries in the UK from their membership obligations.

    Anybody can bailout of citizenship. Go to another country, go to Embassy reject citizenship over political reasons. Btw, to renounce US citizenship requires you to pay a $450 fee.
     
  15. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US Constitution isn't decided by non-US citizens without democratic restraints. As far as I'm concerned that's the hugely significant difference. It comes down to what you see as your nationality, and since you have said that you have no intention of giving up your US citizenship it appears that even you see yourself as much an American citizen as you do an Irish one. I would give up my European citizenship now if I had the means to do so. If my British passport isn't enough, standing in a queue for a Visa it would be a small price to pay.

    Doesn't change the fact that Healthcare Law was voted on by Americans for Americans and I can't find any references to the US being 50 nations apart from yours. This "50 nations" stuff is the BS here, isn't it? And by your own admission Americans rally around their flag, unlike the English and the EU flag. You can put this down to ignorance, but the facts stand nevertheless. Shouldn’t you be “educating” Americans if you think they’re ignorant? And are you saying that UK countries haven’t broken up the union because their people are ignorant? That does seem to be what you’re saying!

    Are you saying that a majority of US citizens would vote to leave the US (after a free and fair debate) if they could? I expect that if we had a free and fair debate on EU membership, a clear majority of the English would vote to leave, and that’s likely to be the reason why politicians won’t face the issue. We're obviously European in a geographical sense, but we're not happy to be European in a political one.
    My daughter faithfully repeated the pledge of allegiance, complete with hand on heart, every day she attended school when we lived in the US (so please don't presume to tell me what I know). She was happy to repeat what was effectively a performance for her whenever we had friends or relatives visiting us, and I'm sure this is just as true for most young children, but they mostly retain that loyalty as adults, even educated ones. And of course, no schoolkid is required to repeat the pledge ... it would be ironic to make it a requirement when it includes the words "liberty and justice for all", and the few objections I heard appeared to be based on the grounds of atheism rather than objections to the US federal system. I don’t see anything wrong is fostering a sense of commitment and respect in immigrants for a country they have freely chosen to make their home. Multiculturalism hasn’t worked out so well here.

    And that's exactly what European leaders (especially those from the UK) have done, they never want an honest debate; they know that it would provoke uproar. I would say that’s deceitful, but it seems to be ok in your book.
    I reject your opinion with equal derision. What happens in England should be for the English to decide, every bit as much as what happens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is for those people to decide. Britain wasn’t even a democracy throughout most of its time as an empire, so the British people are not responsible what happened, good or bad, during that period, and therefore our opinion is not that of a country that “spent 300 years forcing its will all over the world”. (Incidentally, how do you feel about other former colonialist powers, Belgium for instance? Is your derision solely reserved for the British?) And British politicians' treatment of the Commonwealth countries, who had only a few short years before our first application to join stood with us to defeat Nazi Germany and Japanese forces, was shameful. It’s no thanks to Britain that the successful ones are successful after we downgraded out trading links with them, adopting “community preference” and African ones now suffer with the CAP. It’s curious that, given your concern for Britain’s former colonies, that you support the EU. Your opinions about the EU are just not soundly based.

    Thank you for answering the following question. I've added a little more information in bold.

    So you've had 6 non-US born Supreme Court judges since 1789, and none for the last 80 years or so, and every single one of them was nominated by a US president and approved by the US Senate. They made a commitment to the US. Contrast this with biographies of the ECHR judges who are elected by the Council of Europe and have no commitment to the UK (not an EU institution and for which the British people don't vote at all).

    I'm happy with labour mobility being an economic term. But politicians who enact laws that prevent mass immigration, whilst allowing immigration on the basis of labour shortages, protect the interests of those they are elected to serve. Those who promote mass immigration are serving the interests of anyone but those they were elected to serve. If that means I am not in favour of labour mobility “in its purist” sense. So be it. Whatever.

    In other words no, the foreign judges of the ECHR have not ruled that the US must allow convicted rapists and murderers the right to vote. I could give you lots more examples of the ECHR’s brain rotting decisions that it has no authority to impose on the US.

    Yes, we all know that. The US didn't have the UN twisting its arm to go into any of those countries, so I don't see what your point is. Trying to put the UN and the US on the same basis as the UK and the EU just won't work. We can veto UN decisions.
     
  16. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part 2

    I’m not BSing you on anything. No country is required by its membership of the Commonwealth to refer anything to the Privy Council. Many have set up their own Supreme Courts. Every member of the EU, however, is required to abide by the decisions of the ECHR. The UK Supreme Court is subservient to European courts. On that basis it’s more farce than “supreme”. The premise that the EU and the US are on an equal or similar footing structurally is ignorant, or perhaps europhile, bs!

    I most definitely disagree with you about what the EU is.

    You think the EU is run on the UK model. Plainly that's more BS. The party with the "majority" can't use its majority to change the policies of the EU by forcing an election. It doesn't help that the EU keeps its MEPs fat and happy with pay and perks, thereby buying their easy compliance. It does at least have this in common with mainstream British parties and their MPs. The UK parliament is a mixture of parties, with the difference being in a few seats here too, but different parties hold the balance of power. And of course UK citizens can vote out Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour MPs when we have General Elections. My point is that even if the EU citizenship votes out the all of the EPP’s MEPs, the EU's policies won't change. MEPs, as with national parliaments, have so little influence over policies.

    Don't make me laugh! Official figures in 2008 put England's population density at 393 per sq kilometre and we have had net immigration of several hundred thousand since then. We are easily one of the most densely populated countries and especially when industrialised countries are compared. The US, by contrast has a population density of what ... about 40 per sq km? And mainstream British parties want Turkey in the EU, giving each of its 70 million citizens the right to live here. You couldn't make it up!

    Well of course UK and EU are social policies are "like minded". UK social policy, like most other UK policies, are largely the turf of the EU, and like I said, we are bound by what the EU decides, and regardless of what democratically elected British politicians think. The fact that it was democratically elected politicians who willingly gave them the right to do that only increases my contempt for all of them.

    You know the Scots have no obligation to remain in the UK. They have the right to hold a referendum on leaving any time they choose. There's nothing to stop the Welsh or the Northern Irish going for the same right. Very few English people would stand in their way, and they have no means to do so anyway other than persuasion. That's not to say that I won't give my opinion should the subject come my way.

    Yes, but a bit problematic, wouldn't you say, for anyone who only has one citizenship as rejecting one's citizenship does not qualify a person for citizenship anywhere else? You don't face that difficulty; you have an automatic alternative should you choose to reject one or the other of yours! I wouldn't renounce British citizenship, (cost £225) but I'd love to renounce my EU citizenship but there is no mechanism to do so.
     
  17. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Difference being I am married to an American women and was born in the US out of happenstance. You know your UK citizenship and lived with since you were born, just like I was with my dual-citizenship. Of course your willing to give up a citizenship you barely know or used in your life time. You can't miss what you don't use.



    Quick history of the US from 1775-1789

    BS? Richard Henry Lee stated in the Virginia Convention: "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

    State in 1800s meant Nation. It meant it so much that Virginia long before the Declaration of Independence, established independence. Becoming the like England or France while having Virginia Declaration of Rights.

    And ironically if you read the Declaration of Independence you'll find in the last paragraph the same words spoken by Richard Henry Lee but with a bit more.. "and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

    So it was established in the Declaration of Independence those 13 colonies (states) were actually equal to France, England, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia and so on.

    In 1781 the creation of the Articles of Confederation (the first US Constitution) began the "Union" of the States. With only certain powers given to Federal authority of the United States, but the final power was left to the States.

    In the Treaty of Paris, King George III actually recognized not the United States but 13 different independent states.

    Then a group called the Federalist (think big Government Democrats) started to complain about the lack of Federal power saying a stronger central authority could fix the problems. So in came the fight in newspapers between Federalist and Republicans (anti-federalist) and what ended up being created was 2nd US Constitution. But no where in the US Constitution does it create a National Government but a Federal Government as all the US Constitution did was strength Federal powers from the Articles of Confederation. Leading Federalist from several state delegations stated that the power of Federal government would only be contained to those expressly delegated.

    Now minus the Revolutionary war.. sound a bit familiar doesn't it over wrangling over an EU treaty.



    Yes, because it's been 222 years. You still got 175 years to go. I don't care to educated Americans who are too far gone as many like to change definition of words.

    Yes, I am saying that. Be it Scots who think letting whole of the UK profit from their oil is a good idea. To Ulster-Scots who think they are British when in fact they were never wanted in Scotland so they were told to go to Ulster so rich Scots and English got rich of their labor. Only reason they are in Northern Ireland is due to a corrupt system.

    Sure, but the last time US citizens decided to leave the "union" 4 years of Civil War took place.

    Don't care if your daughter did this faithfully or not. But this is my point about children in general (not saying your daughter is one but it proves a point). Children are easily duped into believing something, be it religion, morals, or what your "country" is or isn't. I can tell my son that Kate Middleton is a 2 bit whore and he'll believe it. Does it mean it's true? No. But he'll still believe it. It's why I personally find Federal Department of Education evil, as it's the Federal authority deciding what's taught, not what's true, which is why there are so many uneducated people in the US about American History. Like we are taught Japan attacked the US for no reason, truth is we had an Oil embargo against them. We are also told German attack on the Lusitania was unfounded but the ships own manifest and what divers have found shows that it was used to ship ammo to the UK.



    It's politics.


    My opinion stands for all colonialist powers. Actually the British people are responsible as it was your form of Government that did that. Government needs the consent of the people to conduct such actions. At any point the people could have "risen" up and said no. That's the difference. Americans in 1775 said enough. You guys never did. Which is why my position can not be rejected as if ancestors said no you wouldn't have to worry about granting a form of citizenship to those from the Commonwealth of Nations as you would have given independence and would have no tie to them via the House of Windsor.

    I am not for the EU, I am against it. Majority of my post are anti-EU.. refer to Viv for my position on it.

    I will get to the rest later, I still have to clean up after the Hurricane.
     
  18. mepal1

    mepal1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My brother who lives in Bethnall Green 'London' was witness to the riots, he saw it as nothing but public greed, as most of the looters went into clothes and shoe shops theiving.
    He said you could tell who the rioters were as their were quite a lot of people walking around London wearing new Trainers! in the following days.

    Its shameful that in this day and age some people (meatheads) are prepared to seriously injure other people just for the hell of it, destroy peoples properties and livelihoods, just for the sake of obtaining material goods.

    I'am proud of the UK in general, but we are a very materilistic society, probably more so than any other European nation.
     
  19. mairead

    mairead New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aye, New trainers and carrying Blackberry Phones before they began looting.. So poverty stricken, I don't think. Hooligans at best and sheer criminals at worst.
    You only had to see the injured guy the rioters helped up, then robbed him as they helped him to his feet.
     
  20. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry to hear you were in the path of the hurricane. I hope all is well now.
    I am not only willing to give up my EU citizenship, I WANT to give it up irrespective of the person I'm married to. I don't use it, it uses me. You on the other hand think your US citizenship has a use.
    Sorry, had to snip your history lesson to fit my reply into one post.

    That’s all very well, but we're not in the 1800s now and the US is effectively a single nation because the federal government has strengthened powers to the extent that it, not individual states, conducts most policies complete with the world’s highest military spending to back its foreign policy up. Individual states still decide some things which are denied EU member states. This was never a surprise to the British establishment.
    A "bit familiar" is not the same thing as wrangling over any EU treaty. US citizens are not shut out of US federal government and the democratically elected Congress holds ultimate power over the US president. The democratically elected European Parliament cannot remove an individual European Commissioner (and though it can reject an entire Commission it has only done so once in its lifetime on a moral standpoint, not a policy one) and it has no means to remove the Council of the European Union at all.
    European integrationists don't need the extra 175 years. We're already politically integrated; it’s only the public who are in the dark. As one europhile puts it, "while Europe has seeped into the bloodstream of national politics, it is careful to take a back seat. It is the House of Commons, national civil servants, and national law courts that ratify and implement national decisions. Because national governments are the agents of European powers, the European Commission can remain small and discreet."** What he does not say is that these 'agents of European power' are treaty bound to implement these decisions and if they don’t they will answer before European courts. The US federal government is not so careful to tiptoe past the household in exercising its power. And the European Commission loves to change the meaning of words too. The two have that in common!
    The oil is in UK waters and is therefore UK oil. That would change if Scotland ever votes to leave the Union, but then it would undoubtedly become European oil. (You do know that if England were allowed to take part in any referendum on the subject, the turnout would be probably be quite low if any such vote was not carried out on the day of a general election, but a majority would likely be in favour of dissolving the union? Current funding arrangements do the English no favours even when oil is accounted for.

    The "Ulster Scots" are as British as I am. Your attitude here is curious for someone who believes in labour mobility in its purist sense!
    So where are the opinion polls and the campaigns which support this ‘sure’ [that after a free and fair debate that a majority of people would vote to leave the US]? We have the equivalent in England, despite federalists’ best attempts to conceal the nature of the EU.
    Never in dispute, but you're glossing over the fact that most Americans, educated or not, support the US. You claim this is because they uneducated, but uneducated or not, they still support the US. I can't see how your supposed intelligence makes your view any more worth listening to than any other. (There is no Kate Middleton now. Members of the royal family with HRH as part of their titles don't have surnames. You could call her Kate Mountbatten-Windsor at a stretch, but you're incorrect to refer to her by her maiden name, not that I'd expect you to care either way. And incidentally, as well as being the Duchess of Cambridge, she is also the Countess of Strathearn and Baroness of Carrickfergus.) No uprising in Northern Ireland or Scotland about that.

    Don't you think "evil" might be going just a little over the top? You'll be telling me that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were an inside job next! Japan had joined the Axis powers, so the attack on Pearl Harbour was a wildly disproportionately provocative act to the oil embargo. History is never explained to children in sufficient detail and the victor always writes history, but the oil embargo is common knowledge anyway. Incidentally, the EU has imposed an oil embargo on Syria. Is that justifiable in your opinion? Would Syria be justified in attacking the EU in response?

    No, it's anti-politics. It's the post-democratic age in Europe now, and mainstream British politcians are fully signed up members of it.

    Thank you for clarifying your position regarding colonial powers, but you’re missing the point. Immigration policy is no longer the preserve of our national government, but of Brussels. Your position, therefore, remains rejected. Even if the British public had been in any position to reject colonialism I hardly think it would have made the slightest difference to our current policies. Politicians would have justified mass immigration in some other way. They’re as good as they've ever been with creative justifications.

    You might (or might not!) be interested to know that I'm from Lancashire and cotton workers in Lancashire made a stand in support of Abraham Lincoln’s position on slavery, despite the fact that they were starving after the cotton embargo. There is a statue of Lincoln in Manchester to commemorate this. They also tried an uprising in 1819 over English poverty and it was brutally put down. We didn’t have French help as you guys did, nor were we ever likely to have done.

    The British people were not responsible for colonialism and it was not the form of government chosen by the people. People could have risen up and occasionally did, as could the colonised countries, but the masses were themselves poorly educated and living hand to mouth, so they were hardly in any position to force changes. They had their own problems. The Commonwealth countries have been independent for many years and they choose their ties, without much regard for opinions like yours, and it spite of American foreign policy which discouraged them. In no way are they required to be Commonwealth members. And the British struggled for our democracy, which is why I am not prepared limply accept that the EU is like the US or just roll over and let democracy go.

    I thought of taking most of your comments with a pinch of salt as you say you're anti EU, but you make points that I cannot let go unanswered. You have, I know, made some comments critical of the EU, but I am not aware of any debate between you and Viv on the subject and I didn't know you are anti-EU. I have not chosen to refer to Viv for your position on this as he or she may not wish to get involved in this debate, welcome though any comments would be.

    ** The quote is from "Why Europe will run the 21st Century", by Mark Leonard, and published by Harper Collins, UK. It's an enlightening read into the mind of the europhile.
     
  21. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It happens.

    Okay, so if you were married to a German and had to go back and forth between Germany and UK, you would never seek out EU citizenship status to allow to travel with a passport/visa? I think somebody has never really had to deal with getting a visa more then 1 or 2 times. With the EU that's been eliminated so you don't see the hassle. In my case getting a US visa every so often would be an absolute pain as we aren't really tied down to a single primary home in Ireland as my primary home is in Germany.




    But that's my point you keep missing. The US started out as independent nations with a common market and as the Federal government grew, the independence of the Nation-States got smaller. States barely decided things anymore. It usually ends up in Federal courts. This is no different then what is happening in the EU.



    First off, no EU citizen is shut out either. You still vote for MEPs. So try that line elsewhere. Congress doesn't hold ultimate power over the President because the theory the US has been working on for 225 years is that there are 3 equal branches.

    You think Congress can remove an individual from the White House admin? That's funny. Not once in American history has any person from the White House Admin ever been impeached.

    Now the Council of the EU is Council of Nationally appointed members. So Germany appoints it's members and so on. So when you vote for the PM of the UK you vote for the party who appoints a person to sit on the Council who's expertise is say Banking.



    It would be Scottish oil. You'll find the Scots not giving Oil up to the EU so quickly as they could actually pay for their socialist programs then. Don't care what the English say.

    They aren't British. They are Irish, lived on the island for close to 400 years, which has nothing to do with Labor mobility but the name they are called.

    Oh there is one. That starts with downsizing the size of the Federal Government. It's called the Tea Party, which the mainstream media tries to marginalize and branded them racist.

    They support the idea of it. Difference is how far that idea goes. Much like that of the EU. Like it or not the EU is here to stay in some fashion.

    Uh, yeah I know her title, but I truly don't care. I should just call her Kate Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which is her true name. Despite how many times the British run away from being ruled by Germans. I should also point out it's funny you have an issue with the EU but you have no problem with a family of from Germany providing your King or Queens.



    No, I find it evil to leave out historical facts to shape the ideas of kids. Much like the US Government leaves out historical facts like the CIA used the Middle East as it's play ground to put some very evil people in power in places like Egypt, Iraq, Iran and keep other evil families in power in Saudi Arabia (British put the House of Saud in power) as if people can't be pissed about this.

     
  22. DinoDino

    DinoDino Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The looters were just taking a leaf out of the banker's book.
     
  23. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not whilst I have such serious issues with the EU I wouldn't. If I married a German, he could take British citizenship. If he didn’t want to, I’d live with visa issues. I have dealt with my share of visa applications, so please don't presume you know anything the hassles I face. The fact is you have dual nationality and can bail out if at any time you want to. You don’t need to explain or justify your position.

    I didn’t miss your point and I realise how important it is to you. America was mostly a land of immigrants that came together comparatively quickly to form a new country. The European Union, being made up of lots of age old different countries, will not do that, which is why the EU has had to work through national agencies, turning them into its “agents” without their citizens, and certainly without many British citizens, understanding how much the way that they are governed has changed as a result of EU membership and it's coming together far more quickly than the US did. The EU was never about a common market; that was just how it had to be sold because people would never have agreed to join any other way. And your federal judges are Americans, judging on behalf of people who feel American, disgusted though you may be with that. The English certainly don't feel European enough to be judged by a Latvian or a Spaniard or a German or a Hungarian, and fine judges though I'm sure they are, we disagree with their judgements.

    Oh FCOL! So the EU’s parliament is directly elected by the citizens of the EU. Big deal. When it is equal to the Commission and the Council, when it can initiate legislation, when it respects referendums, when its work is reported in the British media so that people make informed decisions when they vote, you might have something to shout about. Oh, and it would improve its image problem no end if it operated from one site, instead of taking its travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg each month. That costs European taxpayers tens of millions of euros every single year, to say nothing of the carbon it emits while it prattles on about climate change. And don’t get me started on how work-shy and junket loving MEPs are. They’re a waste of space and money. However much you dislike the US federal government, don’t try and make out it’s like the EU. It is not. Congress actually makes laws. That makes it worth a US citizen exercising his or her vote. And second off?

    Not what I said. Congress does have the power in theory to impeach the president as well as well as making laws. The European parliament has no mechanism to do either of those things, or to hold the Council to account. The checks and balances that any worthwhile democracy has just aren’t there in the EU.

    That’s the theory, but the reality ... the British electorate doesn't vote on European issues at all because the establishment here keeps them out of election debates. I could stand on my local high street and ask people all day what they know about the Council does and I'd be very surprised if I could find ANYBODY who'd even heard of it, let alone knew how it works or what it does, or even that in voting for our MPs, we're in anyway voting for somebody to appoint people to the council. I don't think the situation would be too much different if the Commission was the issue either. UK election debates are a farce. (We don't vote for our PM either; we only vote for an MP to represent our individual constituency, with parties having already chosen their leader with the successful party's leader becoming PM.)
     
  24. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Continued from previous post
    Scotland wouldn't have a choice but to give up control of its oil if it wanted to join the EU (and the SNP seem pretty keen on joining) any more than Iceland could keep control of its fishing waters, or the UK could keep control of any oil it might discover, so the Scots might care about that more than they care about what either of us thinks. All new member states are required to accept the Acquis Communataire. There is no negotiation about that. No one disputes Scotland’s right to hold a referendum and we English have the right to hold an opinion. Not all Scots do want to leave the EU, despite what some of them would have you believe.

    What? Ulster is British and the people who live there are British until a majority of them say otherwise. I doubt they'd care what you think so get used to it. What difference does it make anyway? National borders in Europe are being erased.

    So Tea Party candidates actually want their states to secede from the United States? Imagine how they’d feel if their states affairs were being run from Mexico City or Bogota or even Canada!

    A majority of the English want out of the EU, but we’ll see if it’s here to stay or not in any fashion. Every empire falls in the end, even the non-imperial variety. Politicians don’t give a (*)(*)(*)(*) whether we support it or not. They do and that’s all they care about.

    I wouldn’t expect you to care. You’re not British, but I'm surprised that, as you truly don't care, you have made a point of this. I don’t have a problem with the royal family’s origins at all, and I’m satisfied that as the queen was born in Britain, her parents and grandparents too, and is therefore as British as she needs to be is, and has performed her role as head of state as well as any president could and certainly much cheaper than any president is ever likely to. Anyone can choose a new surname, so why should the British royal family’s name change be such a problem for you? Given the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable to change it. And if you think I ought to be more concerned about royalty than the EU, you and I are miles apart on the both the EU and royal issues.

    Sad fact is almost every government does that, including the Japanese, and you can hardly expect kids to take in the complexities of history, and almost every historical event has a precursor. The facts are there to be explored as adults and there's nothing to stop parents or anyone else communicating their own view. People can be pissed about anything they want to be, but they do have to be careful what they say here these days. Free speech is not what it used to be .

    We agree on something. Just checking.

    No, like I said, it’s ANTI-POLITICS. Why bother voting if voting doesn't change anything? Who needs politicians in the absence of democracy?

    I didn’t think it was in this one, and as you might have expected I'd searched for likely terms, but found nothing, so thanks for providing the relevant links.

    I have no love for EU culture either, but you must still see reality from a different perspective to me.
     
  25. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Society exists because of Capitalism. The sooner you realize that they better off you will be.
     

Share This Page